1. Added Trim Knob option that enables adjusting fader/pan settings with input trim knobs.2. Added the function of moving the previously recorded take to the new FALSE TAKE folder.3. Expanded Function Shortcuts as well as Shortcut List Menu.4. Added the function of selecting alphabet letters for the scene number.5. Added Trim Link function for adjusting the input levels of multiple tracks simultaneously.6. Added the function of editing track name in Meta data.7. Added the function of showing track names on the level meters.8. Added the function that enables selecting “Scene_***” for the format of take name.9. Added the function of adjusting L/R track volume.10. Added SOLO function that enables monitoring signals of specific tracks only during playback.11. Added sound report function for exporting CSV format file including recorded take information, etc.12. Changed the location of Next Take menu on MENU>REC>Next Take to MENU>META DATA (for next take).13. Added the function of applying edits of the selected card to the other card when two SD cards are inserted.14. Changed the track order of Poly WAV recorded files from Tr1, Tr2, …, Tr8, L, R to L, R, Tr1, Tr2, …, Tr8.

If you read back through the Audio stream on my blog, I have quite a few articles now on the F8. A bit late for early adopters, but then again I am not one!

In particular I cover powering options in some detail. I also have a list of firmware suggestions and a list of improvements that could come with a new F8 Pro model. (This has been noted by Zoom themselves, and so... fingers are crossed.)

Most of my taping opportunities are 4 tracks or less so a deck like this would be sort of overkill for me but I see myself getting one this year.

Then the cheaper Zoom F4 is right for you?

Not at all really. Why plunk down 650 for a four channel deck when I can do basically the same functions with my current $150 four channel recorder. For another $350 you get a color screen, twice the channels and remote operation. I plan to wire up an 8 channel insert snake and make a few bucks doing multitrack live recordings for the locals...you know for spare change and a few drinks and whatnot.

The value proposition will be different for everyone. Had the F4 been released first, I would no doubt have bought it instead, since the savings are significant. I don't need to mix on the recorder and don't own anything with the Apple name on it, so the Bluetooth app connectivity is useless... to me. Most of the time 4 channels is plenty, and the improved physical interface would be very welcome.

All depends, really, on what you need a recorder for.

Logged

Theatre of Noise contains info on recorders and mics. Plus rants about film, observations on politics, and other stuff.

To save people the bother of clicking through, that discussion is about the following comparison, originally in German, here translated. You'll need to check out the German page for the embedded sounds.

Stephan Lembke concludes:

"As hoped, the sound difference between the Zoom F8 and the Sound Devices 722 is quite marginal and aspects such as the choice of microphones and their placement have a bigger factor for the final result sound recording."

Logged

Theatre of Noise contains info on recorders and mics. Plus rants about film, observations on politics, and other stuff.

To save people the bother of clicking through, that discussion is about the following comparison, originally in German, here translated. You'll need to check out the German page for the embedded sounds.

Stephan Lembke concludes:

"As hoped, the sound difference between the Zoom F8 and the Sound Devices 722 is quite marginal and aspects such as the choice of microphones and their placement have a bigger factor for the final result sound recording."

The film / TV sound tests like one you linked can be fun, but don't give those of us who record music much to go on. I'm waiting for someone to do a true comparison like you're suggesting in an actual concert situation, using a matched pair of mics and in [gasp!] stereo. Why is it that mic manufacturers always put out lots of music samples, but you almost never see that with recorders, even at the professional level? Maybe it's because of the bold part of your quote above.

The film / TV sound tests like one you linked can be fun, but don't give those of us who record music much to go on. I'm waiting for someone to do a true comparison like you're suggesting in an actual concert situation, using a matched pair of mics and in [gasp!] stereo. Why is it that mic manufacturers always put out lots of music samples, but you almost never see that with recorders, even at the professional level? Maybe it's because of the bold part of your quote above.

Your point is well taken; sample music recordings would be useful. Since that is not my area, I will have to pass on to other readers.

But music is relatively easy to record and is a lot more forgiving than trying to capture nature sounds, ambiance, and so on. For one thing, music can tell us nothing about the self-noise of a microphone or recorder, since that is well masked. For another, the quality of a music recording is determined largely by the quality of the music. Our natural tendency to judge that first -- on aesthetics, performance, and so on. So sometimes even poor fidelity concert recordings are lauded.

This is why even professionals were happy using previous generation hand-held recorders which would be completely unusable for my applications. But for dialogue, music etc. they were adequate.

Finally, a point of fact: the recordings linked to are certainly in stereo. The author used a pair of Sennheiser MKH 8040 mics in ORTF configuration. In fact, it seems he had two pairs, one for each recorder. Not many people have four 8040s on hand!

« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 06:54:14 AM by robin746 »

Logged

Theatre of Noise contains info on recorders and mics. Plus rants about film, observations on politics, and other stuff.